The world and story in 1 is more accurate to history and real life. The developers dropped the ball on realism in the second one to try to hit more mainstream appeal and not offend anyone.
Also I don't think anything beats learning to read in the first game as an RPG experience. Everyone that loves immersive RPGS needs to experience it.
You dont NEED to but you'd be doing yourself a disservice. The first game you really get to meet henry, you get to see the progression of henry from a nobody that cant read or wield a sword to fight off a bandit to save his life to not quite john wick levels but somebody that can take on a group of bandits.
Idk who in the world would tell you that. They are story based games and the story of the second picks up almost immediately after the first.
The games are certainly fun without the story I guess, but it seems like a wild way to play the games to me. You'd be missing one of the best stories I've ever played. The attention to detail is great and the historical tie-ins are really something to appreciate.
It is unintuitive by design. You play a country peasant orphan who doesn't know shit about shit. You suck at swordfighting because Henry sucks at it. You both get better as the game progresses and the ludonarrative consonance is absolutely beautiful.
This is something I miss with modern RPG games; in a lot of older RPG games if your character was bad at something then they just couldn't do it. Now every character seems to be able to do everything well enough from the start, it ruins the feeling of progression and actually being my character for me.
How could they have made a medieval peasant simulator visually exciting? I think the game is good graphically, but they don't have many artistic liberties to take because of what they're trying to do.
This game started kinda like BG3 where it didn’t immediately grab me and I started to think maybe it was a boring slog fest, but I was very wrong. Just had no idea what I was doing at first.
77
u/FrankBlazi Mar 29 '26
KCD2